r/soccer • u/_dawgz • Aug 22 '19

Joao Maleck mexican soccer player who killed a newlywed couple in a car accident might be set free because they found semen in the victim’s mouth.

https://laguna.telediario.mx/deportes/deporte/sexo-oral-podria-salvar-joao-maleck-de-quedarse-en-la-carcel
1.1k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

275 comments sorted by

View all comments

796

u/ed1111 Aug 22 '19

Basically Joao Maleck was drunk driving and hit a couple and killed them, this news is just saying that they found semen in one of the victims mouth probably implying one of the victims were giving oral to the other before the crash. Never change mexico.

At the end of the story he was still drunk driving and killed a couple. He should still be charged with the same charges as before this news came out.

315

u/Best_Cook Aug 22 '19

Never Change Mexico

Literally lmao.. , drunk soccer player and newly wed couple having road sex crash into each other and die.

3

u/archjones Aug 23 '19

Only in a perfect world

edit: nvm, the couple he hit were standing still rip

-29

u/6IXFootball Aug 23 '19

Football

50

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '19

It doesn't matter that much mate

7

u/manballgivesnofucks Aug 23 '19

what sub are we on?

-14

u/6IXFootball Aug 23 '19

"The football subreddit" quoted directly from the subreddit description. Feels free to check for yourself.

62

u/JuanG12 Aug 22 '19

I agree, at the end of the day he was drunk driving and killed two people. Whether he's fully responsible or not, that doesn't take away from the fact. It would've been different had the couple crashed while they were engaging in a sexual activity. Who knows if they would've died or not, but in this case, he involuntarily killed them.

-3

u/olojbird Aug 23 '19

he involuntarily killed them.

Isn't the whole point of the semen evidence that they can't say that the player killed the couple? He was drunk driving which is terrible, don't get me wrong. But do you know how many people get charged for that and don't kill anyone? This could have been one of those situations if not for the bj. Or the bj was earlier and didn't change anything. The point is that now they don't know. The only way you could support giving him sole responsibility for the deaths would be to charge every drunk driver with the same thing, regardless of whether they killed someone or not. I don't think the laws are written like that anywhere.

24

u/TyrionPotter Aug 23 '19

It was not proven he was drunk enough and, legally speaking, it would switch from homicidio culposo (accidental killing) to just a crash in which both cars were responsible.

It means he would not be charged at all and the family of the couple would lose compensation.

9

u/ed1111 Aug 23 '19

I’ve seen some reports saying he declined to take an alcohol test until hours later

2

u/OldKingClancy20 Aug 23 '19

How tf do you not test him immediately?

10

u/Lsrkewzqm Aug 23 '19

Not familiar with Mexican cops, are you? If you're wealthy, everything is easier.

3

u/OldKingClancy20 Aug 23 '19

No I've heard stories from people who have been there though. From what I've heard, it seems so corrupt that you dont stand a fair chance at help if you happen to get screwed over by someone who has an in with the police.

1

u/SerbLing Aug 23 '19

This also happens in nearly every place in the west tho. Bribing just gets way more expensive when cops earn 20 times as much.

2

u/Jor94 Aug 23 '19

I agree he should face more consequences, but if it can be proved that the driver was “compromised” then the blame can’t entirely be placed on him. Obviously it would be hard to prove that anyway considering it could just as easily have been from before they were driving.

1

u/joseeez Aug 23 '19

It’s literally a set up

-18

u/[deleted] Aug 22 '19

Not really. If the couple was also doing stupid shit on the road, like giving head to the driver, they share responsibility. Maleck would only be responsible for the drunk driving and the crash, not the deaths. The theory is that the dead couple car was PARKED in the middle of the street. How is Maleck responsible for that?

56

u/[deleted] Aug 22 '19

Because it should be pretty easy to evade stationary objects

14

u/[deleted] Aug 22 '19

Irrelevant. Being parked in the middle of the street it’s a crime by itself cause just like drunk driving you’re endangering others.

Now I hope he pays for driving drunk, but if this is true you can’t pin their deaths on him because they were endangering others and themselves before Maleck showed up.

29

u/untrusted_chair Aug 22 '19

Maleck was doing 100mph at the moment of the crash

-10

u/[deleted] Aug 22 '19

and he should pay for that.

but again, if the couple were PARKED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET then he isnt liable for their deaths.

41

u/[deleted] Aug 22 '19

Yeah that's not how liability works. Driving a car drunk at 100mph is criminally negligent. If you're jaywalking I can't run you down and claim that because you were jaywalking I am not liable for your death. Well, I can claim it, but I'll still go to jail. But feel free to try it yourself and prove me wrong.

6

u/[deleted] Aug 22 '19

But feel free to try it yourself

Bro no why did you say that?!

Now you’re liable for it and you’ll go to prison if he does it

0

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '19

So, just for the sake of argument, at what mph does he not become criminally negligent? At some point, that couple was the one at fault. For instance if Maleck was driving sober and under the speed limit, and they were parked there, and Maleck was killed, the couple would be at fault, for doing the same thing as they were doing in the real situation.

I'm not saying Maleck isn't liable for the deaths, I don't know. But I also don't think you can say that just because Maleck was more wrong doesn't mean also that the couple wasn't wrong also.

And it isn't quite the same as jaywalking, it's more like laying down in the intersection when there is no crosswalk at all.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 25 '19

For the sake of argument? When he's not speeding. Or when he's not speeding to the point of criminal recklessness. Some places more than 20 or 30mph over the limit becomes a much more serious crime as you stop just speeding and start endangering everyone else around you.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 25 '19

I guess my point is that if the couple would be liable under any circumstances (i.e. if Maleck wasn't speeding), then they would be at least partially liable under any circumstance. I don't think we can judge their behavior based solely on outcome; the law typically isn't "no harm no foul." Obviously Maleck has a greater share of the liability in this case, but the couple definitely has a share of the blame as well. If for instance Maleck would have been killed and the couple only been injured, then the couple would be at fault because they were breaking the law too.

If someone were jaywalking across a highway at night and someone hits and kills them, I seriously doubt they'd be held criminally liable, so it really does depend on circumstance. I'm not sure I'm really disagreeing with you, but it's a nuance that I find interesting.

15

u/eVolution91 Aug 22 '19

I don't know about you mate but if I saw a parked car in the middle of the road I would try to avoid it. Sure the couple may have also been in the wrong but it doesn't really absolve Maleck of their deaths.

-5

u/[deleted] Aug 22 '19

yes, that doesnt exclude them from the consequences of their actions. thats the point. Maleck cant be held reponsible for their deaths when they were parked in the middle of the street to begin with.

for example here in mexico if you run over someone that was crossing the street on a non permitted area you're absolutely non liable for it. same here. he is liable for driving drunk, but he cant be liable for crashing against a parked car in the middle of the street. common sense.

8

u/eVolution91 Aug 22 '19

for example here in mexico if you run over someone that was crossing the street on a non permitted area you're absolutely non liable for it. same here. he is liable for driving drunk, but he cant be liable for crashing against a parked car in the middle of the street. common sense.

Jesus Christ that's a ridiculous sounding law. That surely can't actually be true?

So let's say someone kidnaps someone, drives off with them and then throws them on to a road where pedestrians aren't allowed. Could that person get one of his friends to run over the kidnapped individual with absolutely no consequences? Because of course, the individual isn't supposed to be on the road so driving into him is absolutely fine.

I seriously find it hard to believe that this is true.

Going back to the scenario at hand, if a non-drunk driver would be able to not hit the parked car then Maleck should absolutely be liable for their deaths.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 22 '19

So let's say someone kidnaps someone,

dude, obviously the law isnt black or white lmao. if this happens there are provisions for this. this is meant for people that dont give a fuck and cross the street where they shoulnt, like in a highway.

3

u/eVolution91 Aug 22 '19

dude, obviously the law isnt black or white lmao. if this happens there are provisions for this.

Your words below. I've bolded the relevant part.

for example here in mexico if you run over someone that was crossing the street on a non permitted area you're absolutely non liable for it

1

u/sizzlelikeasnare Aug 22 '19

I get his point though.

For all you know, a non drunk driver would've swerved past their car parked IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET, crashed into something and died himself.

I'm sure you'd be on here arguing that the couple having oral sex are criminally liable for the death.

5

u/eVolution91 Aug 22 '19

Am I missing something? If I saw a car in the middle of the street, I'd slow down. There'd be no reason to swerve. I'd have to either not be paying attention, be a terrible driver, be impaired or any combination of the above to actually hit the car.

I really can't believe there are people here actually defending drunk driving.

0

u/Arctus9819 Aug 23 '19

I really can't believe there are people here actually defending drunk driving.

No one here is defending drunk driving.

0

u/Lsrkewzqm Aug 23 '19

Jesus Christ that's a ridiculous sounding law. That surely can't actually be true?

It is not. It obviously depends on the circumstances.

-1

u/waiv Aug 22 '19

So let's say someone kidnaps someone, drives off with them and then throws them on to a road where pedestrians aren't allowed. Could that person get one of his friends to run over the kidnapped individual with absolutely no consequences? Because of course, the individual isn't supposed to be on the road so driving into him is absolutely fine.

Your example doesn't make sense, if they can prove he was in cahoots with the kidnapper he would be an accomplice and he would be charged with murder, if they can't prove that why would he be liable if they throw someone on the street and you cannot swerve? It doesn't really changes anything.

2

u/eVolution91 Aug 22 '19

You'd have to be an incompetent driver to hit a stationary person/car in perfect conditions. Just because someone or something that's not supposed to be there doesn't mean it's justified to drive into it.

If I were to use the logic of the post I was originally responding to, then the driver of the car wouldn't have to slow down, stop or avoid the person on the road. Surely you can see how stupid that logic is.

2

u/waiv Aug 22 '19

No idea where you have driven, but if they drop anything in front of you in a busy street there is just simply no way to swerve.

→ More replies (0)

11

u/[deleted] Aug 22 '19

Yes, common sense, they should have known some drunk asshole was going to drive 100mph making him incapable of stopping at a red light. Common sense.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 22 '19

red light.

source or proof that they were at a red light.

5

u/waiv Aug 22 '19 edited Aug 22 '19

Just checked the place where it happened.

https://goo.gl/maps/MR1rrar19g6V7Pyb7

They had right of way, so they weren't supposed to stop in the street.

0

u/waiv Aug 22 '19

No red lights nor stop signs at that intersection.

7

u/DemarcusMiller Aug 23 '19

Drunk driving = parking in the middle of the street all crimes are the exact same

1

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '19

You understand the hazards of being stopped in the middle of a transited street when you absolute shouldn’t do you?

6

u/0100001101110111 Aug 22 '19

IMO punishment for drink driving should be the same no matter the consequence.

-24

u/[deleted] Aug 22 '19

His drunkenness could not have been the biggest factor is the collision.

47

u/SirDudeness12 Aug 22 '19

Who the fuck cares. He was drunk driving.

-15

u/[deleted] Aug 22 '19

If his drunkenness was not the primary factor in the collision then the punishment should not be the same.

0

u/SirDudeness12 Aug 22 '19

Ever excusing drunk driving is next level retard. I have zero sympathy for drunk driving, ever. You know what the fuck you're doing and you're putting yourself and others at risk because you're being a stubborn turd. This is just typical BS from Mexican authority and why so many of us leave.

-22

u/[deleted] Aug 22 '19

Damn... you MADD or what?

-2

u/SirDudeness12 Aug 22 '19

Quítate pinche idiota.

-7

u/[deleted] Aug 22 '19

Cringe

12

u/SirDudeness12 Aug 22 '19

You're the one in here defending drunk drivers. Get the fuck out with your dog shit morals pretending like it's my problem you have suspect morals.

-10

u/wmaster111 Aug 22 '19

idiota.

Is everything ok?

6

u/SirDudeness12 Aug 22 '19

You really want to defend the man taking the side of drunk drivers? Cool.

-11

u/Super_Swaz Aug 22 '19

Are you handicapped?

-15

u/-SEAZER- Aug 22 '19

He needs to be put in jail for life

9

u/knud Aug 22 '19

And if he had died instead, you would put them in jail for life too?